If you consider the slide of Atmospheric Absorbance of incident energy (to the left), you will note for example that it is not even possible for '90% of sunlight' to even reach the surface, let alone be 'bounced back into space by ice'. It is also that this incident radiation is NOT 'Heat' or even 'radiant heat', another misnomer fostered within the "Media Release" reporting used by 'climate science' and attached platforms.
'Heat' is a measure (on a scale it is labeled 'Temperature') of the average kinetic energy (represented by their velocity) of the atoms/molecules of the 'sample', another style of measure of this energy being 'Pressure' when regard is of Gas or Liquid 'sample'.
The Photons, representing the energy of this Radiation, are only within the bounds of the region of the Atmosphere, but are neither themselves the atoms/molecules nor are they 'attached' to these atoms/molecules, of the atmosphere nor can they be regarded as, or included in any regard of, 'temperature' or 'pressure'.
You will note also that the median Temperature of the surface, the rise of which is so oft mentioned, is produced in the Land surface and if you consider the chart to the right and below, with the liquid of the Oceans following a muted trend similar to, but led by, the Land Surface trend. This is due to the Ocean trend being produced by the processes of Conduction and Convection, which introduce a 15 year ald tween Land surface induction and observation in Ocean surface temperature trends due to the 'landing' of observable kinetic Energy. The muting of effect is due to the Liquid of the Oceans producing Turbulence in reaction to this input of Kinetic Energy, but is not measurable as Temperature until the processes with Turbulence produce an input that can be measured as Temperature. As an aside, Kinetic Energy in use within a process of Turbulence is NOT in itself measurable as Temperature, such energy can only be regarded ONCE, a basic concept of SCIENCE. Mass that is being so transported can have an intrinsic 'temperature' and so 'warm' OR 'cool' air can be in motion, for example.
This observed rise in land surface median temperature is NOT possible to be produced by a supposed 'greenhouse effect'. Consider supposed 'greenhouse amplification', with notice of the plot of atmospheric absorbance. It is seen that the supposed 'greenhouse radiation' is not even seen being surface incident, there cannot be 'amplification of warming' in ANY real and VALID manner seen. So surface temperature rises are not produced by 'greenhouse trapping effects', these supposed 'effects' are not even evidenced in reality and opinions will not produce them, in reality.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
14 comments:
To answer regarding the ‘slides’ I have selected those in a manner that allows me to display on my smart-phone, and display contents also then available from the video out of my phone so without need of a ‘real’ computer i can give a '320x240' "quick talk".
There is not actually minute ‘scale’ to be read, the slide of atmospheric absorbance is only giving a percentage absorbance on the ‘y” axis.
The ‘x’ axis itself can infact be interpreted as being the planetary surface, with the plot showing the penetration to the surface by energy in incident radiation.
The high points, being a 100% absorbance, are also the ‘zero mark’ for energy being surface incident. The ‘valleys’ are the leading of energy TO the planetary surface.
Across the top of the atmospheric absorbance plot, the division is only of Infrared Region, Visible Region and Ultraviolet Region with some wavelength delineation as the actual ‘x axis’ display statistic.
The bottom plot in that chart, showing the ‘total atmospheric’ passing of energy to the surface gives a visual indication of how much energy IS transmitted to the surface, and WHERE that energy is presented from within the various Spectra available.
The other slide is shown to indicate the relationship of the ‘temperature trend’ (the commonly seen "NOAA” slide’ to human population (with expected trend to 2200) from the UN site. Both are very commonly used.
There is simply NOT enough Energy within the Infrared Region to power a ‘greenhouse effect’, and the general conformation of life in the presented bio-form is not evidencing any ‘greenhouse effect’ as ever being existent with presentation of suitable energy to the surface. As the gas of the atmosphere would exhibit turbulence to all direct input of kinetic energy, it is not possible for even direct ‘warming’ of the atmosphere either, by a supposed ‘greenhouse effect’.
I do see that the latest progenitor of humanity is being called ‘Toumai Man’ and is dubbed ‘the new ancestor’. This pushes back the 'Human preclusion' of a 'greenhouse effect' existence to 7 Million years before NOW (possibly).
I am producing this as a potential ‘commentary mirror’ for my “Bigpond" site, this to be the one used for my ‘phone display’ eventually so i can update these articles then with 'bigger' images. I will look into the 'pictures' area here to make available images in near original size if that is helpful for now
Your’s,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
It is that a measure of CO2 is NOT a 'temperature proxy' as it is NOT a replacement for the Energy needed to BE available to create that 'temperature' within a 'greenhouse effect'.
If there had been ever a 'greenhouse effect' that maintained 'temperature' by manipulation of 'Infrared Region Energy' then Life as it is seen, with its saline water basis would now be substantially different even to the style of chemistry used to produce 'life', or a different structure to protect 'cellular water' from the supposedly present energy with 'greenhouse' Infrared Radiation. This situation includes Humanity as it its observed, and it development of the bio-form is tracing back now for near 7 Million years previous to 'now'.
There is also NOT such energy within the "infrared Region" even NOW observed being surface incident with sufficient intensity/energy to produce the effects observed. In a cellular structure the encapsulated water is unable to produce turbulence; it would only be able to have expressed any Kinetic Energy gains as 'temperature' (with associated pressure variation) increases, or the cells began to 'burst'.
Perspiration as a process is not a remediation of this effect; it is the water IN the cells that will become rapidly too hot for 'cell life' to be maintained.
Realise now that to create measured 'heat', that Energy in the Infrared region needs to interact with the materials actually present, on the surface as well as in the atmosphere. That there is still not measured such energy IN sufficient levels becoming surface incident to actually produce the observed effects with interactions with those materials actually present is also realised readily. one needs only to 'measure' and notice the materials upon the surface
The alterations to turbulence seen now are due to the rematerialing by Humanity of the surface producing an overall rebalance of interactions with Energy in the UV Spectrum (tween Visible and the X Ray Spectrums). This rebalance is producing more intrinsic Kinetic Energy gains, resulting in more energy being input to Turbulence (via Conduction and Convection) with the residual being measured as the small ~0.7 Degree C rise in median land surface 'temperature'.
There cannot be a 'greenhouse effect' even existent.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
peter,
Your absorption graph should be multiplied with the plack curve to get energy.
Then you'll see that the peak of the incoming solar radiation is in the visible part of the spectrum where there is little absorption by the atmosphere.
Outgoing radiation peaks in the infrared where there is significant absorption by H2O and CO2.
What you allude to is the attempt to QUANTIFY that energy, but first it needs to be QUALIFIED in distribution. It is the DISTRIBUTION that directs one to understanding the valid INTERACTIONS to be expected from the MATERIALS actually present on the surface. It is that the slide is infact showing the energy that is actually surface incident, that exists within only very small portions of the Infrared Region, otherwise is predominate in the Lower UV Spectrum, and in the lower and upper Visible spectrum only.
Once the QUALIFICATION of available energy source is made, then it will be seen that what is mentioned as QUANTIFICATION is infact supportive of what I have been making comment on. Humanity is altering the materials of the surface and that is altering the interactions style of 'median surface materialing' towards greater kinetic inductions.
The 'outgoing' radiation is infact that suspended within the cascade of Photons by CO2 and CH4 predominately and is indeed that within the Infrared Region, also being such absent from being seen surface incident. What needs to be realised is that the energy absorbance by H2O is retained predominately as a kinetic gain, i.e. velocity increase, of the H2O molecule whilst CO2 reemit's energy at a rate near 100:1 that seen from H2O. Thus H2O is a terminator of the progress of a 'IrR Photon', stripping energy and retaining such then as intrinsic kinetic energy within the atmosphere, and CO2 is a 'step down repeater' of those IrR photons.
The energy that is producing the Kinetic induction is however that being surface incident.
It is the altering of the surface materials that is rebalancing the interactions towards kinetic gains from interaction with that surface incident energy.
That energy is within the lower one third of the UV spectrum and the Visible Spectrum.
The trend of median temperature rise IS quoted for the Land surface (at ~ +0.7 degrees C) and it is this trend that is leading the Ocean surface median temperature trend (as well as now the atmosphere), all now being on the 'Human Population Curve' of surface rematerialing effects.
So it seems that there is now at least a halfway 'meeting' of realisations of cause, which is a good beginning.
Your's
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
"
Thus H2O is a terminator of the progress of a 'IrR Photon', stripping energy and retaining such then as intrinsic kinetic energy within the atmosphere, and CO2 is a 'step down repeater' of those IrR photons. "
Sorry, you've lost me here.
Good luck.
It is indeed unusual to 'loose' someone with the concept of the H2O molecule gaining Kinetic energy, expressed as alteration (an addition) to velocity of the molecular unit, from Energy stripped from a suitable and incident Photon. It is that the vast majority of that Photons energy is not re-presented in any remittance event, instead retained by the H2O molecule. That is to say the H2O molecule gets 'heated'.
The H2O molecule thus removes energy from the Cascade of Photons within the Atmosphere and 'converts' such energy into a 'heat gain of the H2O molecule. The amount of energy so converted by H2O is gained at a rate near 100 times that of CO2.
This is to say that CO2 strips less energy than H2O, reemitting more back into the cascade however and is thus 'stepping down' the energy held within the Cascade of Photons within the Atmosphere but not terminating the continuance of such a Cascade.
Simple really, as the other geat loss of Cascade energy is seen referenced often as an 'Albedo' measure as such Photons escape back to open space.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Peter,
As a professional scientist, I can assure you and your readers that you are spouting pseudo-scientific gibberish. Frankly, it comes across like wacko stuff, making as little sense as the bizarre interpretations of Revelations that you hear from the religious cultists.
As 'RealScientist' made no attempt at specific comment, there is little for either 'my readers' or myself to reply to in any direct manner, so I hope the general comments here in made can lead to further open discussions, with a risk of 'cross-over' into 'Glaciers Reborn'.
To continue and to discuss SCIENCE however, within the over view of Geological Time scales the recurrence of periodic 'global scale' glaciations (in any form of (ir)regularly periodic style) is the less common scenario or perhaps at best seen in just less than 50% of the last 1 billion years. Outside of a Turbulence/Glaciation 'end pair' the remaining time sees instead sea level alterations in a high/low 'end pair' of the Global Climate oscillation. Thus the rise of the overall climate oscillation from the 'rarer' periods of recurring glaciations into an overall warmer period of altering sea levels is usually 'relatively easy'. Remember that the decline in atmospheric water due to glacial growth (after appropriate placement of precipitation as 'snow') will lead to lower surface temperatures as the thermal gradient from land to (a cooling) atmosphere 'increases' conduction of Kinetic Energy into the atmosphere which in turn increases Turbulence that has the chance to further 'cool' the atmosphere as that added kinetic energy is not expressed as a 'residual' temperature'.
The Atmosphere only permits, without major alterations (including to the planetary magnetic field), Energy within the Visible and lower UV Spectrums to become surface incident, and so also the Spectral distribution of long term Stellar output is more relevant than any 'total' output 'statistic'. Realise however that once produced, Kinetic Energy cannot readily escape the Planetary confines, it cannot conduct/convect into open space; the lack of 'mass' as altitude increases restricts the process of Conduction, and gravity is otherwise constraining Convection, so making this a real situation of a cumulative 'output' process of Kinetic Induction.
This cumulative process is what is making the realisation of Human surface alterations so important now, as near ONE HALF the total present 'world' Human Population begins to embark on a geographical expansion across the surface. With around 1.5 Billion in China, and near the same in India soon to follow in this trend, the Millions of square Miles of asphalt and concrete will only make their presence felt in ~20 years from NOW. What is observed NOW as 'alterations' are from the past 400 years up to ~1994. Looking at the planetary surface as not just 'a whole', but as regions of differential pressure, with relation of such to overall Turbulence and consider the alterations of surface kinetic induction due to the new materials not only in 'amount' but with regard to 'location'. Realise that this process will add more 'red' to the chart seen in http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ of the geographical distribution of Human population (1994).
The alterations to atmospheric CO2 are NOT related directly to a warming process, the reduction of CO2 infact allows atmospheric H2O greater access to those Photons and so induces a WARMER lower atmosphere which restricts conduction of induced kinetic energy 'out of the surface' thus aiding in warming the surface. This is due to the surface 'losing intrinsic kinetic energy' at a lower rate, whilst that reduction in CO2 also SLOWS the cascade process as the 'number' of 'repeaters' low in the atmosphere is reduced and thus the transition of Photons to altitudes 'above atmospheric water' is slowed, increasing lower atmospheric kinetic induction rates. The Land surface is warming the Ocean surface in its presently noticed 'rises', and the Ocean surface IS following the Land surface trends just with a 'lag' and in a muted manner (due to induction of internal turbulence to the liquid from the additional Kinetic inputs). In the atmosphere also, Methane is the 'key', being also less soluble than CO2 and so less inclined to short term variations in 'relative' quantity and also (with more import) in overall 'distribution'.
Also 'RealScientist' as you post with an anonymous identity label, avoid any and all detail, and attempt only character assassinations and belittlement why should any "claim regardful of profession" be noticed? There is nothing REAL about the internet label 'RealScientist', and so there is nothing REAL to attach the internet label of 'RealScientist' to the REAL world. Comment as to WHY there is 'supposed fault' 'RealScientist', not just SAY there is such with innuendo.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
There seems another attempt to 'rekindle' the rhetorical efforts to produce 'precautionary issues' to justify suppositions pertaining to 'greenhouse remediation' policy 'lobby actions'. Precautionary Principles would say HONESTLY that 'we' should NOT react with 'scientific pride' and 'humanistic arrogance' in pretending that 'our opinion' can actually 'change the world' to 'match lobby opinion'. This ESPECIALLY when actions 'we opinion' should be then undertaken involving as a basis ONLY 'opinioned material behaviours' could end, in this world, 'our reality'.
Supposed 'remediations' based on 'greenhouse suppositions' with regard to supposed 'unnatural' climate change will have NO beneficial effect, there is NOT possible any 'CO2 based' effect to begin with, and can only then be seen as potentially DETRIMENTAL to the NATURAL course of events and the persistence of NATURAL alterations to Climate being observed. The 'arrangement' organised in Kyoto was ONLY ever involving of 'fiscal trade' concepts, not at all was an 'environmental issue' directly of import, the materials constituting the environment even went unnoticed, replaced by 'opinioned existent substances', there NOT being infact any 'greenhouse behaving' (as per the 'greenhouse theory' describes') gases within the Atmosphere.
Thus there CANNOT be a 'greenhouse effect' even existent and thus attempted 'Proxy concepts' regarding measure of CO2 do NOT then 'offer temperature proxy' for 'estimates of potential temperature' in the REAL environment such measure of CO2 being incapable of offering a replacement for the Kinetic Energy induction needed to BE available to create that 'temperature' when it is also notice the production of Turbulence linked to that production of Kinetic Energy. Temperature is NOT even a valid indicator of supposed UNNATURAL 'Climate Change' in any VALID manner of SCIENCE.
The measured Temperature of a System is that measure of Kinetic Energy residual within the Materials constituting that System that is NOT directly involved in the production of the Processes of Turbulence within that System. In a System where-in the Mass of the most involved materials contained is proportioned in kilogramsx10^24, then alterations to Turbulence within those materials WILL release (or uptake) vast amounts of Kinetic Energy, and that this will then be observed as a RISE (or DECLINE) in the measured 'temperature' of the System with NO NEED for alteration of the RATE of overall 'new' Kinetic Energy production. Interaction of Oceanic (slower) and Atmospheric (faster) process will see the style of variation of TEMPERATURE seen so far. Also, the 'temperature rise' oft mentioned is also of the Planetary Surface, which is being rematerialed.
It is this REMATERIALING, the presentation of unnatural materials in increasing quantity and regional coverage, that is altering Energy interactions in style and Spectrum of Energy that-by producing the observed (small) rise in Surface Median Temperature. So supposed remediations based on CO2 with regard to 'unnatural climate change' will have NO beneficial effect, there is NOT possible any 'CO2 based' effect to begin with.
If there had been ever a 'greenhouse effect' that maintained 'temperature' by manipulation of Infrared Region Energy' then Life as it is seen, with its saline water basis, would now be substantially different even to the style of chemistry used to produce 'life', or a different structure to protect 'cellular water' from the supposedly present energy with 'greenhouse' Infrared Radiation. It is NOT possible for a 'greenhouse warming process' to even have been existent; the 'greenhouse effect' is inconsistent with the materials it involves as these materials present their ACTUAL behaviours, this is inclusive of those materials presented on the surface as well as with those 'bio-forms' of surface life as they exist NOW.
It is NOT possible for the 'greenhouse theory' to produce in reality a 'warming effect' as it is supposed, with manipulation of Energy within the 'Infrared Region' with regard to the real materials present (including those materials involved/contained in 'life forms'.
Realise also that to create measured 'heat', that Energy in the Infrared region needs to interact with the materials actually present, on the surface as well as in the atmosphere, to induct that Kinetic Energy measured then as 'heat' as well as begin the powering the processes of Turbulence. That there is still not measured such energy IN sufficient levels becoming surface incident to actually produce the observed effects with interactions with those materials actually present is also realised readily and NOTICED in its absence.
Again, if you notice the reality of the warmer ocean surface (slides in link * below), you will see that this trend follows the present Land Surface rise in 'shape' even, lagging by 15 years due to the productions of Conduction and Convection transporting that Kinetic Energy TO the Ocean Surface whilst the muting of that displayed trend is due to internal production of Turbulence in the Ocean surface as reaction to those inputs of Kinetic Energy (this trend is seen in plots at the link * below).
There is nothing UNNATURAL seen as yet in the production of the overall Climate Oscillation, and ONLY the cumulative effect from the production of Human Habitat Sprawl upon the land surface (related to Human Population growth in its rapid rise from 500 Million to over 6 Billion in ~400 years) can be seen (again with slides in *). Also, in case of ANY further 'confusion' as to which 'material' is the most involved in the ENERGY interaction concerns of the surface Bio-forms, it is their content of SALINE WATER which makes ANY fluctuation in Energy within the Infrared Region UNABLE to present any sufficiency of ENERGY to 'control' a 'warming process' as is made within the 'greenhouse theory'.
That the HUMAN Bio-form is NOW 'traceable' to ~7 Millions years into the Past and is NOT in that time showing ANY consistent traits TO the persistent presence of a supposed 'greenhouse effect' within that 'period'. This renders moot the relevance of supposition regarding 'greenhouse warming opinion', highlights the disjunction of 'greenhouse science' and the "Kyoto Treaty" from the REAL world and presents only the danger of 'blind tinkering' if ANY attitude beyond POLLUTION regulation if made regarding 'manmade' CO2/CH4, there NOT being any real 'greenhouse capable gases' otherwise present, EVER nor UNNATURAL 'climate change'.
Precautionary Principles would say HONESTLY that 'we' should NOT react with 'scientific pride' and 'humanistic arrogance' in pretending that 'our opinion' can actually 'change the world' to 'match lobby opinion'. This ESPECIALLY when actions 'we opinion' should be then undertaken involving as a basis ONLY 'opinioned material behaviours' could end, in this world, 'our reality'.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Consider REMITTANCE of Secondary Photons from a 'free' Molecule. This is in association with an initial Absorbance Event produced from interaction with an incident Photon. This is not a 'passive event'. The productions 'greenhouse rhetoric' alludes to are of activity from molecules in a Solid or Liquid 'lattice' form however where-in the (Secondary) Emittance is NOT produced by the 'lattice-nodes' (i.e. molecular centres) but from the 'lattice links' joining such into a 'quantum structure'. Thus there is 'theory' inappropriately used within 'greenhouse science'.
This is as the ' (kinetically) excited molecules' are infact compressing those lattice links (comprising of disassociated electrons) & these lattice links will produce a Photons whose properties are defined by the MOTION of that lattice link. This 'COOLS' the quantum 'lattice structure' be producing the Kinetic Action of the Molecular 'lattice nodes' into emitted Photons through the 'Electro-magnetic' link of the Lattice links forming the quantum structure. The 'greenhouse science' has simply 'got it wrong' & this IS obvious with the ERROR of the 'greenhouse theory' being in the effort to supplant the internal Molecular Effects with properties of the EXTERNAL processes of the Quantum Lattice structures.
These errors are exasperated by then attempting to produce this as representative of a 'blackbody effect', which as a passive effect can be seen readily in Solids & Liquids. It is NOT however that the secondary Photons produced by interaction with incident Photons of free molecules is either a Passive Event, nor is it a 'Blackbody event' as the ENERGY of the secondary photon does NOT present any information on the 'TEMPERATURE' of the originating Molecule. There is NOT a 'kinetic action' internal to the molecules represented by 'vibrational states' or alterations to such, this is another misrepresentation presented within the 'greenhouse theory', which was obviously produced with activity of those more used to a Thesaurus than Texts detailing the collected Quantum Theories...
Also, Atmospheric PRESSURE is also a function of GRAVITY, so with Altitude the Atmosphere cools for two reasons. It is further from the main 'heat source' being the Planetary Surface (also applicable to considerations of Gravity) & that the Atmospheres' primary 'kinetic inductor' being H2O molecule which are limited by Physical Properties (the Condensation & Ice point presented as Altitudes) to the 'Lower Atmosphere'. Then the SOLUBILITY of CO2 produces the trend for CO2 to remain also lower within the Atmosphere, linked then to H2O. The major expression of Kinetic Energy within the Atmosphere is within Turbulence & expressions of such, e.g. Weather patterning &/or the production of Precipitation.
All that CO2 does in its H2O produced limitations of motion is to limit the interception rate by H2O of those Photons suitably situated within the bounds of the Atmosphere. Increasing CO2 infact will reduce H2O incidence rates. As H2O retains 100 times the energy CO2 does as a Kinetic Gain (measurable as a Temperature increase) CO2 actually affords those Photons another 'Chance to Escape'. Thus a rise in Partial pressure of CO2 is infact analogous to a 'cooling effect' for the lower Atmosphere. That the Median Surface Temperature is rising is infact due to the rematerialing within Human Habitat construction. It is that the small measured rise of the Median Surface Temperature is ONLY the Residual to the overall INCREASE in Kinetic Energy induction rates. That the Atmosphere is NOT infact producing a stronger alteration to overall Turbulence is infact due to the RISE in the partial pressure of CO2.
The motion trend of Photons within the atmosphere is OUTWARD following the Gravitational Stratification of the Gas Mass that is the Atmosphere. The motion of Photons is directly random as the Molecular axis of the Molecules involved IS in random motion & Photonic Remittance is considered in relation to the originating Molecular axis. The 'short path' is of less consequence than 'greenhouse science' supposes' with so much WRONG within 'greenhouse suppositions' & 'theory' it is NOT even worth consideration allusions relating to 'photonic pathing'. Once a Photon is moving outwards, it is only becoming more possible for such motion to continue. There is not any 'trapping mechanism' presented within the Atmosphere 'in reality' with any similarity to those proposed processes 'defined' within 'greenhouse theory'.
Infact if it wasn't for the rise in CO2 at presently seen, the ALTERATIONS to the surface made within Human efforts of Habitat construction would be showing GREATER alterations to Turbulence & those processes linked to Conduction & Convection within the Atmosphere & Ocean material Masses, whose masses are analogous to (10[exp]24) kilogram 'paired flywheels'... In a rather unusual twist, temporarily the only situation that is WORKING FOR 'Humanity' is this increase in CO2, it is near the only 'factor' limiting overall Increases in Turbulence especially within the Lower Atmosphere. Also, there was it seems some attention recently within the Media towards appearances of 'tissue masses' within (Human) Eyes, these 'tissue masses' being produced in reaction to (over) exposure to UV Photons.
Notice the outlines I (again) mention at link '**' with regard to EROSION & potential degradation of Humanities cropping practices in support of the growing Population. Then notice that the Sprawl Materialing of Humanity interacts with the Environment akin more to a 'Desert-scape' than a Jungle-scape' surface materialing...then notice outline "Glaciers Reborn" within link '*' below. Humanity is creating a Surface of the Primary Crest which carries with it the situation of increased surface incidence of Energy within the UV Spectrum. This situation is seen associated with the Primary Crest behaviours of Climate & so by rematerialing the surface Humanity is LEADING Climate into a 'set response behavior'.
Nature will react in the manner it has to this situation, thus Humanity is required to begin modification to its overall Global Sprawl of Habitat in the organisation of such constructions & the Materials incorporated within these productions. The 'arrival' of that extra 5 Billion People over the next ~100 years will impact not only on the required methods of Base Load Electricity production but on the Median Surface Temperature, Turbulence & O2 production/transport. Realise that only a small portion of the O2 produced at Surface level reaches Altitudes where the O2->O3 interactions of the so-called 'Ozone Layer' occur & that as O2 presence at altitude diminishes those (unwanted) 'UV Photons' will penetrate deeper until becoming incident to an O2 molecule. At least here in AUSTRALIA there are minimum regulation for SUNGLASS lens materials, so even the CHEAPEST have high UV protective lens materials within their construction...
I have mentioned that alteration to O2 production & then to those processes (within overall Turbulence) that transport O2 to altitude will be an 'early warning', & the progressive collapse of the 'Radiation Shield' process protecting the Surface. I just hope that right NOW is not when such warning is given, going 'unheeded' with the effort towards 'collective head hiding ' within the 'greenhouse sands' is not going to remediate the process creating the REAL problems... alteration to Median Surface Materialing linked to construction & thus generation of Electricity to power those construction of Humanity.
Efforts to 'justify a belief' that such a 'greenhouse effect' exists generally harkens back eventually to mention of a supposed 'consensus belief' when general 'greenhouse rhetoric' obviously fails, but then does the 'Greenhouse Supporter' need to notice the REALITY that if such a 'greenhouse consensus' DID exist, it would NOT need to be mentioned so often.
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod™
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
(**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/
I would present here some comments from by a Mr David Slee as made to myself.
My replies as made to date are placed in order of discussion:-
-----
From: David Slee
Subject: Greenhouse effects.
Dear Peter,
I have just looked at some blogs in which you have been participating. I must say they seem to be a complete waste of time as a means to find out the real facts about global warming and the greenhouse effect.
I am a retired Metallurgical Engineer who was the technical Superintendent for the rolling mills at the Newcastle BHP steelworks. Only recently have I become interested in this issue of climate change etc., and I have found it exceedingly hard to find anything factual about it.
As I understand the term greenhouse effect this is apparently the effect which allows life as we know it to exist on this planet. There is radiation from the Sun hitting the Earth all the time - in various forms including the whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiations from ultraviolet to infra red. Some of these are reflected away again; some are absorbed by various components in the atmosphere, and some reaches the Earths surface.
Some of this energy reaching the surface of the earth is then re-radiated back from surface regions but is somehow absorbed(?) or re-reflected back down to the Earth's surface again??????
The net result being that heat is retained in the atmosphere to maintain our living conditions here; and that in the absence of the atmosphere almost all of the suns energy radiation would be directly re-radiated back out into space so that the surface temperature would be too cold for us to survive???? Further I understand this theory was postulated a hundred years or more ago, when nobody knew much if anything about the atmosphere itself!, let alone the radiations from the Sun!)
The primary cause for this happy event for us apparently is that apparently there is a small amount of CO2 and H2O and other gases in the upper atmosphere which do all this good work for us. Further that even a quite small change in the amount of one of these gases (CO2) will make catastrophic changes to our climate - with disastrous consequences for us
all.
AM I RIGHT SO FAR???
Can you or anyone else explain to me how the CO2 molecule has this unfortunate effect of absorbing or reflecting infra-red radiation, but similar sized molecules of O2 and N2 don't - how the tiny H2O molecule does it?
I can see that a small dust particle could be expected to have some such effect as even quite small dust particles have considerable mass compares to these gas molecules. Even large molecules for fluorocarbons etc might have some significant effect relative to these small molecules.
Apparently some of these gas molecules are split into their ionic components by more energetic radiations from the Sun and from Space itself.
This would make their atoms (ions) smaller and even harder to hit. On the other hand I do see that ionised gases (+ and -) might have some effect on Alpha (H +) particle radiations from the Sun! Do we know what effect the Van Allen Belts really have on radiations from the Sum and from the Earth?
As 70% of the Earth's surface is water it seems axiomatic that higher temperatures at the surface will increase the amount of H2O in the atmosphere - yet warming is supposed to reduce rainfall giving us our drought. As the concentration of H2O cant be uniform around the globe I suppose there must be places where there is more and less water vapour and therefore more or less rain. I wonder though wether this is the wrong way around. Might something be happening which is reducing cloud cover which is causing warming (less greenhouse effect) and giving less rain???
Alternatively perhaps more clouds at night give higher temps at night(the fall in temperature in the desert at night under a starry sky can be quite alarming to the uninitiated!!) which gives the surface temperature a start in the morning but that the clouds dissipate in the sunlight of day??
What is the latest thinking on why the Earth's surface temps are what they are? I find the greenhouse idea hard to accept. Surely the evaporation/condensation of water is the main effect moderating our climatic temperatures?
Has there been any real research into the radiation absorbtion/reflection characteristics of the various component gases etc.
making up our atmosphere. How do we know that H2O is the main culprit, followed by CO2 - as we are confidently told "by those who know"? Surely such experiments could be made.
The scientific method is supposed to work on the basis that a proposed hypothesis is tested against all the known facts and if it can't be faulted with the facts then it can claim precedence as something more than a theory i,e, a "fact" or "truth" - until such time as an inconvenient fact is brought forth, with which it cannot cope. That is the theory is only as good as it's weakest link. The IPCC modelling is so hypothetical and inconsistent with many known facts that it is laughable as a scientific theory let alone a "truth".
What frustrates me so much is that skeptics produce "problems" with the conventional wisdom (now there's a misnomer!), but offer little as an alternative for consideration by the layman. As a result the wisdom is credited and the skeptics doubted (or worse). I feel we need to be championing other paths backed up by positive correlations wherever possible.
I have a couple of other conundrums which I would like to put to you.
1. Gravity affects a jar full of CO2 - you can pour it into another jar without it quickly disappearing into the atmosphere. Yet to the contrary
CO2 molecules can migrate against gravity up into the higher reaches of the atmosphere. Apparently heavy fluorcarbon molecules also defy gravity. As old Julius Miller asked "Why is it so"? Further considering the supposed geological eons of time available why hasn't there been any differentiation between N2 and O2 molecules?
2. What causes the nucleation of the fine water droplets which make up clouds? Dry Ice and Silver Iodide crystals do it on large size droplets to initiate rain. The starting of fog and cloud water droplets must be even harder to initiate from supersaturated air?? Is it electrical, or some chemical molecules (ionised or not)?????
Does anyone really know?
I hope this epistle does not arrive at a bad time, or that I am asking "dumb" questions. Some of them seem to me to need answers which I cannot find!!
Kind regards,
David E. Slee.
-----
You overlook that there is also incident Photons within the Gamma & X-Ray spectrums. These photons interact with the outer & most tenuous regions of the Planetary Atmosphere producing the ambient Plasma that surrounds this Planet.
It is the interaction of these high energy Photons with the outer tenuous gases of this atmosphere within the Planetary Magnetic Field that infact shields this planet from such Photons, and as such the preservation of Life (as it is known presently) is to be found in understanding the processes that produce the Planetary Magnetic Dipole.
There is outline in the link * (below) discussing such.
There is not any apparent "greenhouse effect" in existence as such is platformed or "Detailed" in the "greenhouse theory", there is also outline of such in link * (below) You will notice that the effort to produce a greenhouse temperature proxy is based in attempting to cite that Photons within some region of the overall electromagnetic spectrum represent "heat". This is not that case.
To further exasperate the initial erroneous interpretations, the interactions of Molecular Components of the Atmosphere with Photons that present a reemitted Photon are attempted to be treated within "greenhouse science" as supposedly "trapping heat", a complete nonsense again platformed within "greenhouse doom & woe" propaganda.
The number of basic errors in SCIENCE as such exist within "greenhouse science" leads to a situation of there not being any need to regard such a "greenhouse effect" to be needed within any concerns of "preserving life". It is not even shown to exist as it is platformed to be within "greenhouse science".
Consider that molecules are the physical conceptualisation of an Electro Magnetic Field, with Photons being the conceptualisation of a discrete electromagnetic wave. The Interaction of Molecule with Photon is akin to that of a Tunned Antenna to a Waveform it will respond with. Hence the differentiation of Behaviours of Molecules to various Photons.
There is a chart within link * (below) detailing the most common Atmospheric Molecular components ,where in the horizontal axis can be regarded as the Planetary surface with Photons there to incident when the Plot Line reaches that Horizontal. These are the Photons that provide the CONSISTENT warming effect for this Planet.
A Molecule, "big" or "small", interacts with Photons in a particular manner, a {Solid} has properties that a Molecule does NOT possess, & the "greenhouse theory" is mistakenly attempting to present Solid "style" interactions for Molecules, hence the "heat trapping" nonsense.
This is also discussed in outline with link * (below).
There is NOT "reflection", there is reemittence of a Photon. The components of the Atmosphere are well understood & very common, the call for "research" within "greenhouse science" is constant & persistent but mostly unnecessary, demanded by those attempting to avoid the DETAIL already known & in common use. If in these common uses design was made using "greenhouse interpretations" most modern artefacts would NOT function.
Notice that Water interactions in the lower Visible, the OCEANS thus are the consistent producer of any warming effect. The alterations to the Surface by Humanity is altering the behaviours within interactions to incident UV especially, hence the observed trend in the Land Surface which is then leading (due to processes of conduction & convection) that trend within the Ocean Surface (seen within NOAA plot within link *).
To regard the "conundrums":-
You will need to regard "Gravity" as a Macro effect, Molecules have a "mass" only by regard of present SCIENCE. A molecule again is an electromagnetic field. The atmosphere is stratified in a MACRO manner by gravity but there is NOT any divide to prevent any molecule from moving within such bounds.
Notice that O2 is NOT Produced in the atmosphere, yet it is high level O2 that interacts with UV-C, the primary {UV Shield} process, whilst the O3 then formed interacts with further Photons within the UV-B sub spectrum. It is of more import then to notice HOW that O2 can reach altitude than ANY other study if regard is for preserving Life (as it is know).
Notice also that it is only the Condensation/Freezing Point altitudes of H2O that limits Atmospheric Water in its meanderings, whilst it is the Aqueous Solubility of CO2 (when linked to these Altitudes for H2O) that limits the meandering of Atmospheric CO2.
Remember that the H2O molecule has another property constantly overlooked within "climate science", that property being its STRONG "imbalanced ionisation" with its particular Molecular form. A water molecule can infact seed to formation of a LIQUID H2O mass by simply being present. Once the "surface" of the droplet begins to form, incident Water Molecules are collected (as example the surface tension of Liquid Water is an observation of this ionic effect). It is this property of Water, the scavenging of more water, that saw early Life within the Atmosphere become 'carnivorous' in the effort of collecting Molecules trapped in other water droplets (simplification of process for this comment)
I hope my comments are of assistance, I would like to offer your comments to my Weblog so to expand the attached discussions. These eventually become involved in reworking of those articles.
Yours,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
In response to:-
-----Original Message-----
From: David Slee
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:33 PM
To: Peter Anderson
Subject: Greenhouse effects.
From: David Slee
Subject: Ice distribution during the last Ice Age.
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your reply, which I shall mull over for a few days. At the same time I notice in one of your blogs a picture showing the Earth's surface during the last Ice Age. This interested me as it confirms what I had already come to understand.
You show areas in white which presumably defines the areas of intense cold (perhaps Ice?), and the area east of the Urals in Siberia and Alaska is all green. At the same time the white area protrudes well down into the US (down to cover most of Tennessee and reaching to Missouri).
This strikes me as quite curious and not in accord with the world we now inhabit. My explanation is that the poles and the axis of rotation must have moved since then to their present positions. If you superimpose the present extent of Arctic ice (or a circle representing the present extent of the Antactic Ice Cap onto a globe with the North Pole running through a position at about latitude 70-75 degrees North somewhere in the region of NW Greenland/Baffin Island, then you get almost the same distribution as you show!! Also curious is that this "former" Pole is also close to the present Nth Magnetic Pole.
This also needs to take account of the numerous Russian finds of Bronze/Iron Age settlements in the higher reaches of the Taiga in western Siberia, where people could not exist with the exhibited lifestyle only 3/4 thousand years ago, judging by the present climate there. I think there is considerable evidence for one or more very recent changes to the rotation of the Earth - axis and speed. I think the whole idea of Ice Ages isn't founded on as strong a foundation as we all think and hope it is!
I was also taken by your projection of planetary atmospheric tails or small vestiges of tails. The question of the nature of Comets also interests me and if you imagine a smaller body with a much larger atmosphere compared to a planet then you perhaps end up with a Comet??
Archaeologically, there is no evidence our forbears know of Venus prior to about 1000 BC - yet it is the most easily identified planet in the sky - while they knew of others which we find it hard to see today. It suggests to me that Venus and its massive atmosphere may well have joined us in its present form about then, and that the Venus atmosphere is but the collection of all the tail of a huge Comet back into the control of the slowed down head - now Venus????
Both of these thoughts seem "way-out", but if there was something in them then we would have to rethink a lot about the earth, its atmosphere and the processes acting upon it.
Kind regards,
David E. Slee.
The slide mentioned is from Rice University, notice please the {water mark} & notice that "clicking" on those images presents an enlarged "normal" view, if this is not realised already.
The "white region" notices surface under more permanent glacial effects, with weather reliant Snow falling beyond even that "white" region, this being my understanding of the image.
If is noticed outlines in link ** it will be realised that there was a large drop in Relative Sea Levels (-120 metres vertical) within the last "Ice Age" glaciation event as "seen" otherwise today. This event is also just one of around 60 (numeracy reliant on definition of such "glacial events"), with some noticing even up to 100 classifiable events within the past 3 Million years.
So the placement of "ice" is on that Land Surface exposed during this period. Notice within link ** that in this period there was a Land Bridge connecting the land masses of "Australia" to "New Guinea", as well as the European & North American Land masses.
Hence the placement of such Ice.
This motion of relative Sea Level is also not finished, as there is still too much Ice remaining. This Ice is NOT in itself however needing to "melt" into the Oceans, but is only a MARKER for a process as not yet finished. It is that Water Ice is not common in such quantity in a permanent style as is been seen within the past 10,000 years. This ice is "here & now" due to the recent "Ice Age" event, its "melting" is not at all due to any unnatural climate effects thus the platforming of suppositions of such unnatural alterations again are making only unjustifiable opinionation, not SCIENCE.
Notice there is also a relative precessional motion of Planetary Rotational Axis & Magnetic Axis. Motion of the Magnetic Moments of the Planetary Field will involve also alteration to Radiation that is Surface Incident. Total inversion of Magnetic Moment would see intense Surface Radiation for some (unknown) period. It is also then that the Planetary Dipole is most critically needing more intense study in its production & persistence in production to safe guard "Life as it is known".
To notice Venus prior to 1000BC you would need to find a Culture able in that time to be able to notice such, whilst I recall mentions of literature from China. Such references, although with language making difficult to make any indication directly that the there-in made Astronomical & Astrological references are to the (as NOW called) Planet Venus.
Lastly, notice that a body of the MASS of Venus would find itself indeed "unlucky" to be captured by the relatively small Star we call Sol. At speeds of over 10,000 kilometres per second even such a mass as Venus presents would be difficult to resolve into its present orbit. The possibility of a "Planetary Strike" is however NOT an uncommon hypothesis.
A Planetary Comet Strike on Venus would disrupt, & add mass to, the Planetary Atmosphere. However the present Planetary Dipole being so weak needs also to be noticed. Recall that Comets are not regarded as presenting a large point mass in their "heads" also.
Yours,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
(**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/
In response to:-
-----Original Message-----
From: David Slee
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 2:52 PM
To: Peter Anderson
Subject: Ice distribution during the last Ice Age.
Post a Comment